ML15121A635
| ML15121A635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2015 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-250-LA, 50-251-LA, ASLBP 15-935-02-LA-BD01, RAS 27644 | |
| Download: ML15121A635 (27) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4 Docket Number: 50-250-LA and 50-251-LA ASLBP Number: 15-935-02-LA-BD01 Location: teleconference Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Work Order No.: NRC-1522 Pages 211-236 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
211 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 CONFERENCE CALL 7 ----------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
9 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT : 50-250-LA and 10 COMPANY : 50-251-LA 11 : ASLBP No.
12 (Turkey Point Nuclear : 15-935-02-LA-BD01 13 Generating, Units :
14 3 and 4) :
15 ----------------------x 16 Wednesday, April 29, 2015 17 18 Teleconference 19 20 BEFORE:
21 MICHAEL M. GIBSON, Chair 22 DR. MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 23 DR. WILLIAM W. SAGER, Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
212 1 APPEARANCES:
2 Counsel for the Applicant 3 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.
4 of: Florida Power & Light Company 5 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 220 6 Washington, DC 20004 7 202-349-3496 8 steven.hamrick@fpl.com 9 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 David Roth, Esq.
11 Daniel Straus, Esq.
12 of: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 Office of the General Counsel 14 Mail Stop O-15D21 15 Washington, DC 20555-0001 16 301-415-2749 17 david.roth@nrc.gov 18 19 On Behalf of Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.
20 (CASE) 21 Barry J. White 22 10001 S.W. 129 Terrace 23 Miami, FL 33176 24 305-505-9011 25 bwtamia@bellsouth.net NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
213 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:05 a.m.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: We're going to have to go 4 back and do announcement of counsel for the record.
5 Counsel for the Applicant?
6 MR. HAMRICK: Yes. This is Steve Hamrick, 7 counsel for Florida Power & Light.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Staff?
9 MR. ROTH: David Roth, counsel for the 10 Staff. Also Brian Harris and Daniel Straus are here 11 too.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: And for CASE?
13 MR. WHITE: Barry White, authorized 14 representative for CASE.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well.
16 Okay. Let me start by first saying, Mr.
17 White --
18 OPERATOR: This it he operator. I'm 19 sorry. Are you ready to begin the conference?
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, I am.
21 OPERATOR: Okay. Who am I introducing?
22 Who do you want me to introduce when I open up the 23 line?
24 CHAIR GIBSON: You don't need to introduce 25 anyone, ma'am.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
214 1 OPERATOR: Okay.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Just open it up and they 3 can listen.
4 OPERATOR: Okay. Sounds good. One 5 moment. Let me open it up here. One moment. Okay.
6 Your line is open. You may begin when you're ready.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, ma'am.
8 Mr. White, I want to first of all 9 reiterate that when you file by email, all filings 10 must be in the form of attachments to the email. The 11 filing should not be contained in the body of the 12 email.
13 Additionally, the Board does not need to 14 receive memos of consultation exchanged by the parties 15 prior to the filing of the motion. The consultation 16 only needs to be certified in the actual motion you 17 filed. Do you understand that, Mr. White?
18 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. Okay.
20 Let's first talk about the disclosure 21 requirements. Is everyone clear on what the 22 scheduling order would require them to disclose?
23 Staff?
24 MR. HAMRICK: This is Steve -- oh.
25 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the Staff. Yes, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
215 1 Your Honor.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Applicant?
3 MR. HAMRICK: Yes, we are clear.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. White.
5 MR. WHITE: Yes, I am.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well. Now, you 7 know there are a couple of differences with your joint 8 motion. You all asked for a 30-day extension of the 9 initial disclosures instead of 120 days. You all 10 asked for 120 days and we only made it a 30-day 11 extension.
12 I think just to make sure you understand, 13 we did not feel that the level of complexity arising 14 from one admitted contention justified additional 15 delay to the period set by regulation for initial 16 mandatory disclosures in the hearing file.
17 We think that any further delay is 18 unnecessary and not justified and so, for that reason, 19 we put 30 days in there.
20 Secondly, we noted about waiver of 21 privilege logs because that is a very important issue 22 to the Board and we want to make sure that all the 23 parties understand the significance of waiving a 24 privilege log before they do so.
25 Third, we changed and made clear that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
216 1 definition of drafts does not concern documents that 2 have been shared between the parties. That 3 essentially would prevent them from being drafts.
4 Let me ask, does anyone have any questions 5 about those things? Let me start with Staff.
6 MR. ROTH: No, Your Honor. No questions.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Applicant?
8 MR. HAMRICK: No, I don't have any 9 questions.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: And Mr. White.
11 MR. WHITE: No, not at this time.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. Now, we -- I 13 think what we need to do now is to find out what kind 14 of -- whether the schedule is going to work for the 15 parties. I understand that there's a motion for stay 16 pending but, for the time being, I think we have to 17 assume that we need to proceed with this order if that 18 motion for stay is not going to be granted. So I 19 guess we need to find out is the schedule going to 20 work for you.
21 Let's start with the Staff.
22 MR. ROTH: Your Honor, we believe it would 23 be most efficient if it was staggered filing rather 24 than simultaneous filing. That would provide the most 25 responsive and easiest to understand filings.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
217 1 With that said, the main items that the 2 Staff wants to avoid for the schedule are to have the 3 Indian Point proceeding dates land very close to the 4 Turkey Point proceeding dates because the counsel, Mr.
5 Harris and I, are the same counsel for both 6 proceedings, for both hearings.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: And that is set in 8 November. Is that correct?
9 MR. ROTH: That's correct.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well.
11 Now, just for the benefit of all of us, 12 were we to change this from a simultaneous to a 13 staggered filing, how would that affect the scheduling 14 order?
15 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the Staff.
16 Then, of course, the initial filing would be from 17 CASE. In a manner consistent with Indian Point, the 18 response to filings for the Staff and the Applicant 19 would show up sometime later, presumptively 60 days 20 after CASE filed.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: And what is the reason that 22 you maintain that there needs to be a staggered 23 filing?
24 MR. ROTH: To be most responsive to the 25 issues that CASE wishes to have litigated it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
218 1 simplest if we clearly see exactly what their 2 positions are. Otherwise, we may be filing on items 3 where the parties are in agreement. We may actually 4 entirely not address an issue that CASE thinks is a 5 significant issue because we haven't seen what their 6 reasons are.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. If we were to 8 stagger this, then I assume instead of September 14 or 9 September 21, we'd be looking at something 10 significantly lighter. Is that correct?
11 MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And have you 13 calculated those times out, counsel?
14 MR. ROTH: No, I have not immediately 15 calculated those out. In a few minutes we could after 16 the call we could certainly propose a schedule based 17 on that after consulting with the other parties, too.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, I do think 19 it's important. Have you consulted with the other 20 parties about this?
21 MR. ROTH: No, Your Honor. We have not.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Anything else, 23 Staff?
24 MR. ROTH: One moment, Your Honor.
25 One other item to emphasize and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
219 1 reasons for suggesting changes to the schedule.
2 Again, we wish to make certain that not just the 3 hearing dates between Indian Point and Turkey Point 4 overlap, but the preparation of testimony, motions for 5 cross-examine, questions for the Board, that all those 6 items are not arriving simultaneously. The 7 proceedings will move on. We're just trying to avoid 8 having them arrive on the same Friday, for instance.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. All right. Very 10 well.
11 All right. Applicant, how about you?
12 MR. HAMRICK: This is Steve Hamrick for 13 the Applicant. I am open to the suggestion put 14 forward by the Staff to have staggered filings. I 15 think in light of the procedural posture based on 16 CASE's contention, it would be helpful for CASE to go 17 first in order to, as the Staff said, clarify the 18 issues that are outstanding so that we don't waste 19 everyone's time by addressing issues that may not be 20 relevant.
21 On a somewhat related issue, I realize 22 that the motion to stay is not -- we're not discussing 23 that right now. One thing we did discuss in that 24 motion that affects our scheduling discussions is that 25 there are two, and potentially a third, administrative NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
220 1 hearing on very kind of interrelated issues in Florida 2 this summer.
3 I believe it's scheduled for July 13th and 4 one in August. We will most likely use the very same 5 experts and we will have some challenge meeting the 6 initial June 22nd date for initial positions and 7 testimony while those experts are tied up in those 8 other -- in preparations for those other hearings.
9 I do think that the Staff's proposal of a 10 staggered hearing might aid FPL in its, I guess, 11 resource management to help that by pushing back the 12 date somewhat for FPL's initial filings.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you give us a little 14 bit more information about what these pending matters 15 are but for the state agencies?
16 MR. HAMRICK: Certainly. One of the 17 issues that's been discussed in this case is the use 18 of new wells in the upper Floridan aquifer, the 19 aquifer that is below the surficial Biscayne aquifer 20 for water to be used -- to be added to the cooling 21 canal system.
22 That's one of the steps that needs to be 23 taken for FPL to comply with the administrative order 24 on cooling canal salinity. In order to install and 25 operate those wells, FPL needs an amendment to its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
221 1 site certification for Units 3, 4, and 5 that would 2 allow the drilling and production of those wells.
3 That is a site certification amendment hearing that 4 has been challenged by third parties. That is set for 5 a hearing before an ALJ in Florida on July 13th.
6 The other issue is the actual 7 administrative order itself has been challenged by 8 several third parties. That case is set before the 9 same ALJ tentatively for August 3rd. There was a 10 motion to consolidate the two hearings and the ALJ 11 denied that motion so there will be two separate 12 hearings; one on July 13th and one tentatively set for 13 August 3rd.
14 The third issue hearing has not yet been 15 set -- a date has not been set but the FPL's 16 withdrawal of water from the L-31 canal, that's the 17 surface water from the canal, that was granted 18 recently by the South Florida Water Management 19 District.
20 However, it was granted subject to an 21 opportunity for a hearing. We understand that third 22 parties are intending to request a hearing. I don't 23 believe they have -- it may have happened this 24 morning, I don't know, but as far as I know it has not 25 happened yet but we expect a third party challenge to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
222 1 that South Florida Water Management District decision.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you give us a rough 3 idea of the probable time frame for that dispute 4 before the South Florida Management District to be 5 resolved by the state agency?
6 MR. HAMRICK: I can't --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: That decision to, you know, 8 the state courts so this could be dragged on for 9 years. Just in terms of an actual decision by the 10 South Florida Management District what are you looking 11 at realistically?
12 MR. HAMRICK: I am not directly handling 13 that case. It's hard for me to give you a very good 14 estimate. My understanding is that a hearing would be 15 in August/September, late summer, early fall time 16 frame. I believe they try to do it relatively 17 quickly. I don't think it's a matter of waiting until 18 next spring or something like that. I think it would 19 be a relatively quick hearing.
20 MR. WHITE: If I may on that particular 21 thing, I believe the South Florida --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Just a minute. Mr. White, 23 is that you?
24 MR. WHITE: Yes, please.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: You'll need to be sure to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
223 1 identify yourself because the court reporter cannot 2 tell who is speaking.
3 MR. WHITE: Thank you.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Please identify 5 yourself and then you can speak.
6 MR. WHITE: Barry White, CASE Miami. Just 7 for the record, I believe that the Water Management 8 District approved 100 million gallons a day withdrawal 9 from the L-31E canal beginning June 1st and that's, I 10 guess, what's been appealed.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I want to make sure 12 we understand what we're talking about here. When you 13 say that's being appealed, that is being appealed to 14 whom? Is that with the South Florida Management 15 District itself or is that to a court in Florida?
16 MR. WHITE: I am not a party to that 17 action and I do not know.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Let me ask the Applicant.
19 Do you know?
20 MR. HAMRICK: Yes. It's an administrative 21 proceeding before an ALJ is my understanding.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Which would be to challenge 23 this approval of the 100 million gallon withdrawal 24 that occurred on June 1st.
25 MR. HAMRICK: That's my understanding, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
224 1 yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Fair enough. Fair enough.
3 Now, we are unfamiliar with Florida state 4 procedures so, Mr. Hamrick, could you give us an idea 5 of how the ALJ system works there? Do they normally 6 issue a decision on the day of the hearing? Do they 7 issue it a week later? Do they issue it a month later 8 or a year later? Could you give us some idea of the 9 time frame we're looking at here typically?
10 MR. HAMRICK: They normally issue written 11 opinions after the fact much like the ASLB would do.
12 I don't expect there to be a decision from the bench, 13 but I also don't expect it to be a year. I would 14 expect a similar situation. After the hearing there 15 would be proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 16 law. Then after that would be a reasonable ALJ time 17 frame 30, 60 days would be my estimate for a decision.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
19 Mr. White, do you have anything to 20 contradict what Mr. Hamrick just said about the normal 21 time frame for a decision from an Administrative Law 22 Judge from either one of these agencies?
23 MR. WHITE: I have the DOHA hearings that 24 you're talking about, gentlemen, in the state. I 25 really cannot -- I can't -- I have no direct NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
225 1 experience with that but I can relate.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.
3 Staff, do you have any knowledge one way 4 or another on this?
5 MR. ROTH: No, Your Honor. We have not 6 looked into how long for them to issue their decision.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Let me see if I can sort of 8 describe what I'm hearing as the music behind the 9 words here. The Applicant is suggesting that were we 10 to delay the issuance or the filing of some of these 11 reports until we had some kind of fact-finding by an 12 Administrative Law Judge after a hearing, we would be 13 in a better position to rule on the pending contention 14 than if we were to go ahead and go forward with this 15 because whatever the Administrative Law Judge might 16 come out with could bear on the decision that we would 17 reach. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Hamrick?
18 MR. HAMRICK: That's a fair statement, 19 yes.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. What is 21 your view of that, Mr. White?
22 MR. WHITE: A few things. Just to address 23 the facts on the ground if that's relevant. The need 24 for 100 million gallons a day is immediate because of 25 the problems we're having in the cooling canal. If NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
226 1 these legal proceedings are going to delay that, 2 that's a real time problem.
3 I don't know how that's going to be 4 handled given the circumstances on the ground whether 5 or not they will be allowed to commence the withdrawal 6 of the water or there will be a stay of that. That is 7 something that has to happen immediately. If the 8 impact of filing the lawsuits is to delay that 9 withdrawal, I would point out FPL is going to have a 10 major problem there in the cooling canals. Something 11 is going to have to change.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Before you go to your next 13 point, let me just ask you, Mr. Hamrick, do you know 14 how that would normally work? Would there be a stay 15 of this order or the order that was issued on June 1st 16 go forward until after a decision by the 17 Administrative Law Judge which might affect that 18 order? Is there some stay involved?
19 MR. HAMRICK: I think that's -- I can't 20 predict that. I believe there would be a stay of the 21 authorization. However, there could be a request to 22 lift the stay. It's not possible for me to predict 23 right now what would happen on that.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. And I appreciate you 25 don't know what's going to happen. I'm just trying to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
227 1 find out what the practical effect is of filing -- of 2 challenging the order that was issued on June 1st.
3 That's all.
4 MR. HAMRICK: I believe that the practical 5 effect initially would be to stay its effectiveness 6 subject to further motions and things like that.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: So would it be fair to say 8 then that Florida Power & Light has no interest in 9 delaying that proceeding at all, that it will be 10 moving as expeditiously as possible to get that matter 11 resolved.
12 MR. HAMRICK: To the extent that a hearing 13 request actually is submitted, I believe FPL would 14 have an interest in resolving it expeditiously, yes.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Fair enough. Fair enough.
16 I realize you don't know whether it's been filed or 17 not.
18 MR. HAMRICK: Right.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: We have to assume for the 20 sake of argument now as we are trying to understand 21 these concerns that is essentially -- what your 22 position will be if that is challenged that you all 23 would be working as quickly as possible to get that 24 resolved. There's no -- you all have no interest in 25 delay because of the way the process works. Is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
228 1 a fair statement?
2 MR. HAMRICK: That is. I would be happy 3 to -- I think there may be some movement on these 4 types of issues over the next few days or weeks. I 5 would be happy to commit to submitting a letter to the 6 Board informing it if there are relevant scheduled 7 considerations that come out in the next few days.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: I think that would be very 9 helpful for us. Now, before we go further on that, I 10 need to go back to Mr. White. I interrupted him 11 because I wanted to know. He wasn't sure about what 12 the possibility was of a stay. Hopefully I didn't 13 completely derail your train of thought, Mr. White.
14 You can go to your second point now, unless there is 15 something else you want to say about this stay that 16 Mr. Hamrick just said.
17 MR. WHITE: I would just try to point out 18 the realities and what was at play that could 19 influence the judicial proceedings.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: And you don't really 21 dispute Mr. Hamrick's characterization that Florida 22 Power & Light would not have any interest in delaying 23 that proceeding because of the way the process works.
24 Is that a fair statement?
25 MR. WHITE: Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
229 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough. You 2 can go onto your second point now. I'm sorry I 3 interrupted you.
4 MR. WHITE: The only other thing I would 5 ask about is I just want to understand a little bit 6 when the idea of not filing simultaneously an order, 7 the first date that I think we have to comply with is 8 May 22nd and then June 22nd, July 22nd. Those are the 9 dates we're talking about changing?
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. We would be -- well, 11 let me just say two things. I believe were we to 12 entertain some kind of a delay because of the pending 13 state proceedings, we would probably postpone the 14 filing of these days regardless of whether there was 15 a simultaneous or a staggered filing.
16 In all honesty, Mr. White, what comes out 17 of those proceedings could be very useful material for 18 what you're trying to do in this proceeding. Were an 19 Administrative Law Judge to make findings, there might 20 be useful information for you that you could use in 21 your filings. Were we to delay this that, again, 22 might be to your benefit.
23 I just don't want to -- obviously we can't 24 put this off for years waiting for this entire process 25 to run its course at the state level. We don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
230 1 any factual finding on these matters and it appears, 2 at least at first blush to me, that they might have 3 some material bearing on the contention that you've 4 raised.
5 MR. WHITE: I appreciate that. On the 6 other hand, as you say, Your Honor, I would hate to 7 see this drag on forever. Could we maybe agree on a 8 60-day delay on all of these proceedings? Move it all 9 forward 60 days so that by that time we can move 10 forward?
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Let me just ask the 12 Applicant.
13 Is that -- I realize we have some Indian 14 Point issues which we'll talk about in a minute, but 15 just purely are you thinking that if we delay this 60 16 days, Mr. Hamrick, that would do it? It sounds to me 17 like 90 days might be closer to it considering that if 18 the Judge in these cases, one in July and two in 19 August, is to issue some kind of factual finding, it's 20 not likely we would see that, Mr. White, until 21 probably September before we have all of those 22 findings done which, if I'm not mistaken, would be 23 like 90 days later. Is that right?
24 MR. WHITE: I think that's right.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. Hamrick, 90 days.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
231 1 MR. HAMRICK: Yes. Nothing that we are --
2 I guess we still have our motion for a kind of full 3 stay pending but, setting that aside for a moment, I 4 think on the mere issue of do we have enough time to 5 get together with our experts to prepare testimony, I 6 think 60 days would be sufficient for that purpose.
7 I think if we want to wait, or try to wait for some 8 kind of resolution from the pending state hearings, I 9 think 90 days is more like it.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, let me just say 11 -- I want to make clear when we say resolution, it may 12 not be a final resolution in that the aggrieved party 13 may prosecute an appeal of whatever that 14 Administrative Law Judge's decision is. At least I 15 think we could all agree that within 90 days we would 16 have some kind of a factual finding from these 17 administrative proceedings.
18 Again, I think that information could be 19 relevant for this tribunal. Frankly, I think, if 20 anything, would probably work to Mr. White's benefit 21 because he would have some additional substantive 22 information that he could use in support of his 23 contention.
24 MR. WHITE: I would agree with that, Your 25 Honor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
232 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Let me just -- but are --
2 do you think that's realistic, Mr. Hamrick? That's 3 all. 90 days?
4 MR. HAMRICK: Just so we're clear, we're 5 talking 90 days from June 22nd so that would be 6 September -- roughly September 22nd or 90 days from 7 today?
8 CHAIR GIBSON: No, no, no. Not from 9 today. That would be 90 days from May, right?
10 MR. HAMRICK: May 22nd was the first 11 deadline that we had right now.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Yeah, yeah. That's when we 13 need to make our disclosures.
14 MR. HAMRICK: Okay. I was thinking 90 15 days -- okay. So 90 days from -- so initial 16 disclosures would be roughly August 22nd.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yeah. Hold on just one 18 second, please.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 10:35 a.m. and resumed at 10:37 21 a.m.)
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Let me -- I think I 23 understand now. Our intrepid law clerk caught my 24 error there. Yes, we're talking about 90 days from 25 June 22. Obviously this is not going to affect the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
233 1 initial disclosures.
2 Those would need to be made irrespective 3 of this but in terms of the actual filing of this 4 information that's going to be due in June 22, we 5 would delay that 90 days. You are correct, Mr.
6 Hamrick. I wasn't tracking there was, yes, that's 7 correct.
8 MR. HAMRICK: Okay.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. White, if we're looking 10 at extending the deadlines that began on June 22 by 90 11 days, are you okay with that?
12 MR. WHITE: I think that's okay. The only 13 hesitation I have is that the problems that are on the 14 ground will continue and be exacerbated over that 15 period of time but I guess there's nothing I can do 16 about that.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. Well, we 18 will table the question of whether we have a staggered 19 or simultaneous filings for now. But it does sound to 20 me, counsel for the Staff, that if we were to delay 21 this 90 days, the deadlines that began on June 22, 22 that should give you the relief that you need in terms 23 of having any conflict with Indian Point.
24 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the Staff. Yes, 25 Your Honor, that would.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
234 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So I'm not asking 2 you to withdraw your motion to stay, Mr. Hamrick, but 3 I take it subject to that, you're okay with this 4 adjustment to the order?
5 MR. HAMRICK: That's correct.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And Staff, you're 7 okay with it as well?
8 MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: And Mr. White, you're okay 10 with that?
11 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well. What we 13 will do then is we will -- we would appreciate that 14 letter from you, Mr. Hamrick, that would sort of set 15 out -- hopefully by within the week you'll know what 16 the status is of this challenge of the order.
17 Perhaps you can consult with your 18 colleagues there who are handling the state 19 administrative proceedings and make sure that your 20 understanding that you gave us, which we understand 21 was just your understanding, is a fair depiction of 22 how things will proceed there.
23 We would all like to have that so we'll 24 know that we're not -- we would not be delaying things 25 by 90 days for no reason at all.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
235 1 MR. HAMRICK: Certainly.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: But it does sound to me 3 like we've come up with a pretty good plan. We will 4 take under advisement your request, Staff, for 5 staggered versus simultaneous filings. I doubt 6 seriously that we would allow a 60-day difference 7 between one and the other because we're only talking 8 about one contention here.
9 We will take that under advisement. We 10 will be drafting an order that addresses these matters 11 post haste, but we will wait to issue that order until 12 we have gotten that letter from Mr. Hamrick to make 13 sure again that we're not just spinning our wheels.
14 Okay?
15 MR. HAMRICK: This is Steve Hamrick. I 16 understand and I will work to get that letter as soon 17 as practicable.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you so much.
19 All right. With that, let me ask you, 20 counsel for the Applicant, is there anything further 21 that we need to address at this time?
22 MR. HAMRICK: This is Steve Hamrick. I 23 don't believe so.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you, sir.
25 Counsel for the Staff?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
236 1 MR. ROTH: David Roth. No, Your Honor.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. White?
4 MR. WHITE: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
6 Judge Sager, is there anything else we 7 need to address?
8 JUDGE SAGER: No, I think I'm okay with 9 what you guys have done so far.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Judge Kennedy?
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy.
12 No, I'm good with it.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: All right. Fair enough.
14 Very well then. We will stand adjourned. As soon as 15 we get that letter from Mr. Hamrick, we'll be getting 16 an order out. Have a nice day.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 10:42 a.m.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433